MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013304313 · doi:10.20429/amtp.2016.39

Impact of Personal Beliefs in Business-to-Business Buyer Decisions

2016· article· en· W3013304313 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Doreen Sams, Joe Schwartz, Ron Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For school transportation buyers, who have depended on diesel for decades, gaining knowledge of complex and dynamic information is complicated by the growing number of alternative fuel vehicles. As with a number of business purchases, school bus acquisitions represent a major expense for school districts. It a multi-faceted decision and is typically made by a group of influencers who weigh the various alternatives and have extensive input in the purchase process. As would be expected from a process of this nature there are many elements that are considered such as product cost, safety, reliability, maintenance costs, and anticipated fuel expenditures. As with many B2B decisions the general assumption, both by the bus companies and the school districts, is that while each district has different goals, price points, and expectations, these purchases follow a basic model of economic utility. The purchase that is expected is the one in which utility is maximized and cost is minimized. However, psychological ownership implications have the potential to help practitioners in understanding and predicting the important dimensions of customer value in the business-to-business context that influence the purchase decision. Therefore, a survey study was conducted that examined the importance of a variety of elements of the purchase decision with a clear sub-focus on sustainability as well as some demographic and psychographic questions. Individuals listed in two industry databases were contacted with an invitation to take the survey. Of those individuals 498 USA and Canadian school bus decision-makers and influencers responded. The primary relationship that was of interest was whether personal interest in sustainability and alternative fuel vehicles altered perceptions or behavior in the business decisions of the respondents (H1: Owners of hybrid vehicles will be more likely to purchase alternative fuel buses.) The hypothesis was supported. An implication for academicians from the study is that for Business-to-Business (B2B) purchasing individual perspectives of those carrying out policies have a significant influence on purchase decisions. Furthermore, from the study it can be seen that individuals in the buying center add value to economic theory of rational choice by bringing their personal knowledge to the buying center decision. While this has been accepted as a major aspect of individual decision making, it implies a much stronger weight to the psychological aspects of purchase in B2B decision than is currently accepted in modeling B2B buyer behavior. For practitioners, this study shows that it is very important for salespersons to know the personal driving habits of the buyers in a group as their behavior weighs on their interpretation of the benefits of other alternative fuel products in B2B setting. Alternately, if an influencer is not an alternative fuel owner then it will be much more difficult to make the argument for conversion to an alternative fuel bus fleet. In summation, because buying centers are made up of people with varying roles, previous knowledge from personal experience could impact final decisions. This knowledge of a gap and the personal experience with similar products provide just the opportunity needed to adjust the marketing mix needed to make the sale.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207